Girnal Holdings Pty Ltd v Leighton Properties Pty Ltd

[1983] FCA 108

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - course t o be adopted with respect

t o t r l a l o f p r o c e e d i n g s i n v o l v i n g ~ u r i s d l c t l o n a l q u e s t i o n -

Federa l C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t l o n t o d e a l w l t h non-federal

counter -c la ims ( spec l f lc per formance) - "matter" -

e x c l u s i v i t y o f l u r l s d l c t i o n - quest lon soon t o be consldered

by t h e High Court - u n d e s i r a b i l l t y of a s l n g l e 2udge d e a l l n g

w i t h l u r i s d l c t i o n a l questions l l k e l y t o be consldered by t h e

High Court - not lces under s . 7 8 B J u d l c l a r y Act on t r i a l n o t

t o p r o c e e d u n t l l High C o u r t ' s r u l i n g - e a r l y h e a r i n g d a t e If

par t i e s subsequen t ly p roceed I n the Federa l Cour t

T rade P rac t i ces Act

J u d l c l a r y A c t , s . 7 8 B

The fo l lowing unrepor ted dec ls lons cons idered -

Pencott v. Muller (Hlgh Court)

Stack & O r s v . C o a s t S e c u r l t l e s ( N o . 3 ) Pty Ltd (Federa l Cour t )

Barqal Pty Ltd v . Force (30.3.1983) (Supreme Court)

Bargal P t y Ltd v. Force (13.5.1983) (Supreme Court)

GIRiiAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD (F i r s t App l l can t ) and MICIIAEL

ROBERT SHARP and MARY MARGARET SHARP (Secondi AppllCantS)

V . LEIGHTON PROPERTIES PTY LIMITED

Q l d G 6 and G 2 1 of 1983

FITZGERALD J.

BRISBANE

31 MAY 1983

IN THE FEDERAL couw OF AUSTIIALJA ) Qld G 6 of 1983

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Qld G 2 1 O f 1 9 8 3

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN:

GIRNAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD

rst A p p l i can .t

AND :

MICHAEL ROBERT SHARP and

MARY ElARGARET SHARP

Second Appllcants

AND :

LEIGHTON PROPERTIES PTY LIMITED

Respondent

_ _ _ _ _ O R D E R

JUDGE .XiiKING ORDER: FITZGERALD J .

DATE OF ORDER: 3 0 MAY 1 9 8 3

WHERE MADE: - BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS m m :

1. T h e t r l a l of t h e s e P roceedmgs w 1 l1 nc

proceed on 1 5 June 1 9 8 3 .

2. T h e proceedings be adjourned general ly but

may b e r e s t o r e d f o r f u r t h e r d l r e c t i o n s a t a n y time

on s h o r t n o t l c e .

3 . No o r d e r as t o c o s t s .

;N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

QUEENSLAND D I S T R I C T REGISTRY ) Qld G 6 of 1983

GENERAL D I V I S I O N ) Q l d G 2 1 of 1983

BETWEEN :

GIRNAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD

F l r s t A p p l l c a n t

AND :

MICHAEL ROBERT SHARP and

MARY MRRGARZT SHARP

Second Applicants

AND :

LEIGHTON PROPERTIES PTY LIMITED

Respondent

FITZGERALD J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

When t h i s matter was be fo re m e on 16 May 1983, the

d e c i s l o n of t h e Hlgh Court i n Fcncot t v. M u l l e r (unrepor ted)

had recent ly been de l lvered . T h e p a r t i e s were then m

agreement t h a t t h e r e was no o b s t a c l e t o t h l s Court t r y l n g

t h e whole controversy between them, a mot lon for a s t a y

of the proceedlngs I n t h l s C o u r t was dlsmlssed by consent ,

a n d d a t e s f o r t r l a l were f lsed whlch were sul table t o a l l

p a r t l e s . The h e a r l n g d a t e s are 1 5 , 16 and 1 7 June 1 9 6 3 .

S l n c e t h e n , c e r t a i n o t h e r p r o c e e d l n g s 2.n t h l s Court ,

App l l ca t lons G 8 , G 9 and G 1 0 of 1983, Stack and O r s v.

C o a s t S e c u r i t l e s (No. 9 ) Pty Ltd have been removed i n t o

t h e Hlgh Cour t fo r It to determine a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

question. T h e p r e s e n t matter was mentloned before me o n

26 May, when all p a r t l e s were represented b11 counsel

2.

The immediate ques t ion i s what course should

b e a d o p t e d w l t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t r l a l of these proceedlngs

whlch i s f i x e d t o commence l n 2 - 3 weeks time. There a re

a v a r i e t y of c l a m s a n d c r o s s - c l a m s r a l s e d f o r

d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n two separa te appl lca t lons which have

been o rde red to be hea rd toge the r . The a p p l i c a n t s

s eek r e l l e f unde r the Trade P rac t l ces A c t 1 9 7 4 i n

r e l a t i o n t o c o n t r a c t s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t l e s f o r t h e s a l e

and purchase of residential u n i t s a t t h e GolC Coast anal

g u a r a n t e e s r e l a t l n g t o t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h c c o n t r a c t s .

T h e respondent , the vendor , c la ims spec l f lc per formancc

and/or damages 111 re spec t o f t he con t r ac t s and the

gua ran tees . The q u e s t l o n a s t o w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l

should be permitted t o proceed 1s very much r e l a t e d

t o a n l d e n t i f i c a t l o n o f t h e ~ u r i s d i c t l o n a l q u e s t l o n

o r q u e s t i o n s whlch have been removed l n t o t h e

High Court . I n o r d e r t o c a r r y o u t t h a t t a s k , it 1 s

n e c e s s a r y t o r e f e r b a c k t o t h e S t a c k I l t l g a t l o n .

The a p p l l c a n t s I n t h i s C o u r t I n t h e S t a c k

proceedlngs (" the purchasers" ) were a l ready defendants

l n the Queens land Supreme Court when the p rocecd lngs in

th l s Cour t were commenced. I n some of t hose Supreme Court

ac t ions , judgment for spec l f lc per formance had a l ready

been g iven aga lns t t he pu rchase r s In f avour o f t he

plaintiff i n t h a t C o u r t ( " t h e vendor") . I n o t h e r a c t l o n s

I n t h e Supreme C o u r t , a p p l i c a t l o n s f o r summary judgment

3 .

for spec l f lc per formance were threa tened by the vendor .

The pu rchase r s sough t i n th l s Cour t o rde r s unde r tne

T r a d e P r a c t i c e s A c t d l r e c t e d t o	t h c	avoidance of	the
c o n t r a c t s .

The p a r t l c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n s w i t h w h l c h I was

concerned i n t h e S t a c k l l t i g a t l o n w e r e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r

i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n ~ u n c t l o n s t o p r e v e n t t h e v e n d o r s f r o m

c o n t i n u i n g f u r t h e r I n t h e Supreme Cour t p r lor t o t h l s

Cour t de te rmining whether the cont rac ts should be avolded

under federa l l a w . I t 1s Impor t an t t o pu t tinose

a p p l i c a t l o n s f o r l n t e r l o c u t o r y m l u n c t i o n s I n c o n t e x t .

From what I was t o l d , t h e p u r c h a s e r s h a d r a i s e d

the Trade P rac t l ces Ac t i n the Supreme Cour t bu t

McPherson J . had granted speclf lc performance of the

c o n t r a c t s whlch had been the subject of proceedings

before hlm. Although there was no o f f i c l a l t r a n s c r i p t

of McPherson J's reasons , bo th counse l who apPeared

be fo re m e were agreed as to what had occurred , and

accep ted the subs t an t i a l accu racy o f a shor thand note

of what h i s Honour had sa ld . Af t e r ho ld ing tha t , as

the ev idence s tood , s t a t emen t s whlch the pu rchase r s

a l leged had been made by t h e v e n d o r ' s a g e n t d l d n o t

e n t l t l e t h e p u r c h a s e r t o r e s c l n d t h e c o n t r a c t s a p a r t

from the Trade P rac t l ces Ac t , McPherson J. contmued -

4 .

“The m a t t e r s a r e also re1 l e d on a s glvll lg

rlse t o r e d r e s s f o r t h a t conduct i n terms

of t he Trade P rac t l ces Ac t and to tha t

end the de fendan t has l s s u e d proceedlngs

I n thc Federa l Cour t w l t h a view t o

o b t a l n i n g r e l l e f l n c l u d l n g r e s c l s s l o n

of t h e c o n t r a c t ... I f t h e y a r e

s u c c c s s f u l the r e l i e f w l l l n e c c s s a r l l y

c u t a c r o s s a n y o r d e r t h a t 1s made I n

t h l s c o u r t ... It seems t o m e t h a t t h e

appropr i a t e cour se i s , h a v l n g r e g a r d t o

t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p l a l n t l f f h a s no

a v a i l a b l e remedy a p a r t from tinat In

t h l s c o u r t , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r s e 1 s

t o glve ludgment I n favour of the

p l a l n t l f f a g a i n s t t h e de fendan t s fo r

a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t I n e a c h

lns tance ought t o b e s p e c l f l c a l l y

pe r fo rmed and the rea f t e r t o o rde r t ha t

t h e f l rst defendant purchaser

s p e c l f l c a l l y p e r f o r m t h a t c o n t r a c t . ”

H i s Honour, however, granted a temporary s tay of

execut lon of the ~udgments whlch he had pronounced

t o p e r m i t t h e p u r c h a s e r s t o a p p l y t o t h l s C o u r t

“ f o r a f u r t h e r i n j u n c t i o n o r s t a y of o r I n r e s p e c t

of t h l s ~ u d g m e n t o r I ts enforccment“. I t seems from

what I was candld ly to ld by Counse l for che vendor

t h a t McPherson J. was I n f l u e n c e d t o r s f u s e a s t a y

of the proceedlngs before him and t o take t h e c o u r s e

whlch he dld by t h e concession made I n t h e

Supreme Court by t h e v e n d o r t h a t t h l s C o u r t c o u l d ,

In an appropr ia te case , g ran t such an in junc t lon

o r s t a y .

5 .

From what I was a l s o t o l d , It also s e e m

t o have been common g round in the Supreme Court, and

was, a s I unde r s tood the i r submlss lons , accep ted by

b o t h p a r t l e s l n t h l s C o u r t , t h a t t h e Supreme Court

c o u l d n o t g l v e e f f e c t t o a n y c o n t r a v e n t i o n s o f t h e

Trade Prac t ices Act lnvolved I n t h e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t l o n s

a l l e g e d , b u t t h a t t h l s C o u r t c o u l d , by reason of t h a t A c t ,

make orders whlch would overcome t h e e f f e c t o f a n y

Supreme Cour t decrees for spec l f lc per formance . I f

t h a t v i e w was i n c o r r e c t , t h e n t h e r e was a r l s k of

g r a v e l n j u s t l c e . Whether by reason of estoppel o r

o therwise , the conscquence n lght have ensued tha t t h e

c o n t r a c t s had been o r would be upheld wlthout any

de te rmlna t lon on t h e merlts of t h e purchasers '

a l l e g a t i o n s i n r e l a t l o n t o the Trade Practices Act.

The d i f f l c u l t y e x l s t e d b e c a u s e t h e view which had been

adopted was t h a t n e i t h e r C o u r t h a d o v e r a l l ~ u r i s d i c t i o n

b u t t h e j u r l s d l c t i o n was divided between them.

I n t h o s e p a r t i c u l a r p r o c e e d l n g s , a s t h e y came

t o m e , the under lymg problem was therefore fundamenta l ly

j u r l s d l c t l o n a l . McPherson J. l n t h e Supreme Court had

ac t ed on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e Supreme Cour t had ju r i sd i c t lon

6.

t o g r a n t s p e c i f l c p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e c o n t r a c t s d e s p l t e the

p roceed lngs In th l s Cour t t o have the con t r ac t s avo lded .

From what I was t o l d , McPherson J . vas a l s o of op ln lon

t h a t t h e Supreme Court could not entertain clalms under

the Trade Prac t lces Act . From what had already occurred

be fo re McPherson J . , It was a r easonab le ln fe rcnce tha t

t h e Supreme Cour t mlght gran t spec l f lc per formance of

f u r t h e r c o n t r a c t s p r l o r to any de termlna t lon of the

pu rchase r s ' - Trade Prac t lces Act claims. In those

c i r cums tances , ques t lons a s t o t h e r c s p e c t l v e > u r ~ s d ~ c t ~ . o n s

and powers of t h l s Cour t and th? Supreme Court wcIe

unavo idab ly r a i sed fo r cons lde ra t lon by the pu rchase r s '

a p p l i c a t l o n s f o r l n t e r l o c u t o r y l n ~ u n c t l o n s , l r r e s p e c t i v e

of how t h e p a r t l e s s o u g h t t o p r e s e n t t h e i r a r g u m e n t s .

Because the proceedlngs then before me Involved only

a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r I n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n s , my t a s k

was l lmlted t o c o n s l d e r l n g whether t h e p r o p o s l t i o n s

which needed t o b e e s t a b l l s h e d a s a b a s l s f o r s u c h

i n t e r l o c u t o r y l n j u n c t l o n s were arguable . I t might

h a v e b e e n s u f f l c l e n t t o d e a l w l t h t h e a p p l . i c a t l o n s on

t h e basis which had been accepted in the Supreme Court

b u t I d i d n o t f e e l a b l e t o d o so b e c a u s e ~ u r i s d l c t l o n a l

q u e s t l o n s were involved and other simllar a p p l i c a t i o n s

were i n t h e o f f i n g .

l.

I n d e a l i n g w l t h t h e ~ u r l s d l c t l o n a l q u c s t l o n s I

s a l d :

" I t i s , l n my op ln lon , an a rguab le p r o p o s l t l o n t h a t a l l o f t h e c l a i m s o f

e a c h p a r t y a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r b o t h I n t h i s

Court and i n t h e Supreme Court of Queensland

i n e a c h c a s e a r e b u t a s l n g l e m a t t e r

w l t h i n t h e e x c l u s l v e ~ u r i s d i c t l o n o f t h i s

Court now tha t p roceed lngs are I n e x l s t e n c e

h e r e . N o d o u b t , t h e Supreme C o u r t i n l t l a l l y

h a d l u r i s d l c t i o n t o d e a l w l t h t h e

respondent ' s c la ims in t h e a c t l o n m t h a t

C o u r t . P r l o r t o I ts domg so , t h e

a p p l i c a n t s r a l s e d t h e s e a l l e g e d c o n t r a v c n t l o n s

of t he Trade P rac t l ces A c t and commenced

p r o c e e d i n g s l n t h i s C o u r t r e l a t e d t o t h o s e

a l l e g e d c o n t r a v e n t l o n s . I t i s not suggested

t h a t t h e a p p l l c a n t s ' c l a l m s a r e n o t bona f l d e

and, lndeecl, I have concluded chat the

app l i can t s have made out an a rguable c a s e

t h a t t h e a l l e g e d cont ravcnt lons took p lace .

The t o t a l l t y o f t h e f a c t u a l l s s u e s a r e

l d e n t l c a l I n e a c h c a s e m each cour t .

The r e l i e f s o u g h t i n one cour t by one p a r t

i s b u t t h e a n t l t h e s i s of the r e l l e f

s o u g h t I n t h e o t h e r c o u r t	by	t h e	o t h e r
p a r t y .

O t h e r p o s s l b i l i t l e s , of c o u r s e , a r e t h a t

t h e Supreme C o u r t h a s j u r l s d i c t l o n I n

r e s p e c t o f t h e a c t l o n commenced there, and

may deal wl th a d e f e n c e t h a t a c o n t r a c t

has been resclnded which 1s r e l a t e d t o

the Trade P rac t l ces A c t , 1.e. I n e f f e c t

dec ide the whole d l s p u t e , o r t h a t It a t

least h a s j u r l s d l c t l o n t o d e t e r m l n e t h e

r e sponden t ' s c l a lms , w i thou t r e fe rence

t o t h e Trade P rac t l ces A c t , a s lt has

lndeed done ln the two a c t l o n s In which

It has g lven ~udgmen t , l eav lng th l s Cour t

t o d e c l d e t h e q u e s t l o n s u n d e r t h a t Acc

by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e same f a c t s , w l t h all

the a t tendant problems of poss ib le

e s t o p p e l s o r l n c o n s l s t e n t f l n d i n g s o r

c o n t r a d l c t o r y r e l i e f e tc . "

8 .

A t no time have I sought to develop an argument

a s t o what the answer 1s or ough t t o be conce rn lng

t h e r e s p e c t l v e l u r l s d i c t l o n s of t h l s C o u r t a n d t h e

Supreme Cour t . Wl th one qua l l f ica t lon , I based my

opin ion a s t o what I thought was a rguable I n r e l a t i o n

t o t h e r e s p e c t l v e l u r l s d l c t i o n s e n t l r e l y upon r e l a t i v e l y

r e c e n t d l c t a I n t h e Algh Court . The sole q u a l l f l c a t l o n

i s t h a t I n o t e d b r l e f l y t h a t there a r e a l l n e of cascs

elsewhere m which the v lew has been debated as to

whether there may be a ~ u r i s d l c t l o n a l c o n f l i c t n o t o n l y

where, and t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t , a Commonwealth Act

e x p r e s s l y makes f e d e r a l l u r l s d i c t l o n c x c l u s l v e b u t

also where the exe rc l se o f non- fede ra l j u r l sd2c t lon

m l g h t c u t a c r o s s o r	lmpede	t h e	exercise	of	fcr leral
l u r l s d i c t l o n .

I n t h e S t a c k l l t l g a t i o n I d e c l l n e d t h e l n j u n c t i o n s

s o u g h t . I n t e r a l i a , I considered t h a t it was, I n g e n e r a l ,

m a p p r o p r l a t e f o r t h l s C o u r t t o g r a n t l n j u n c t l o n s t o

res t ra in proceedlngs i n a S t a t e Supreme Cour t and tha t

it s h o u l d b e l e f t t o t h e Supreme C o u r t s t o d e c l d e t h e i r

own j u r l s d l c t l o n s u b j e c t o f c o u r s e t o r e v l e w b y t h e

Hlgh Court .

A t t h e t l m e when I handed down ludgment In the

S t a c k l l t l g a t i o n , I also refused In proceedings

G 1 8 of 1983, Force v . Ba rga l P ty L td , t o g ran t an

l n t e r l o c u t o r y l n j u n c t l o n a t t h e s u l t o f a n o t h e r

pu rchase r t o r e s t r a ln ano the r vcndor f rom con t lnu lng

wl th Supreme Court proceedlngs.

9 .

Shor t ly the rea f t e r , t he vendor , Ba rga l P ty L td ,

brought on a motion i n the Suprcme Court f o r a n

in junc t lon r e s t r a in lng the pu rchase r f rom p roceed lng I n a p p l i c a t l o n No. G 1 8 of 1 9 8 3 I n t h i s C o u r t u n t l l

t h e d e t e r m m a t i o n by t h e Supreme Court of the vendor ' s

ac t ion fo r spec l f i c pe r fo rmance . Tha t app l l ca t lon came

be fo re McPherson J. H1s Honour de l lve red r easons

i n d i c a t i n g why h e c o n s l d e r e d t h a t t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h

t h i s C o u r t ' s j u r l s d l c t l o n 1 s or cou ld be made exclusive

1s l l m l t e d . I t 1s n o t f o r m e to canvass what was tinere

s a l d . However, one ma t t e r may be noted. McPherson J .

s a l d -

"I t h e r e f o r e f i n d m y s e l f I n r e s p e c t f u l

dlsagreement with t h e view expressed by

F i t z g e r a l d J . I n t h e d e c l s l o n t o whlch I

have r e fe r r ed . In r each lng t he conc lus lon

t h a t t h e ' e n t l r e j u r l s d l c t l o n ' ( t h a t ls,

b o t h t h a t e x p r e s s l y i n v e s t e d by s . 8 6 of

the Trade Prac t lces Act , and tha t

imp l l ed ly Inves t ed by the Cons t l t u t ion )

i s e x c l u s i v e t o t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t h l s

Honour consldered . . . ' I .

That passage 1 s i n a c c u r a t e I n i t s d e s c r l p t i o n of t h e

conclusion which I am sa ld to have expres sed and It i s

d e s i r a b l e t h a t I say so, les t i t i n a d v e r t e n t l y

t e n d t o s u p p o r t a damaging misconcept lon that there

i s tens ion be tween the Cour ts .

10

Not ices pu r suan t t o s.78B of t h e - Judlclary Act 1903

were g iven by t h e v e n d o r I n t h e S t a c k l l t l g a t l o n a n d , by

d i r e c t i o n o f t h l s C o u r t a n d t h e Supreme Court , 111 t h e

F o r c e l l t l g a t i o n .

Next came t h e ~udgment of the Hlgh Court I n

Fsnco t t v . Muller. No fu r the r s t ep has been t aken

I n t h i s C o u r t I n e i t h e r t h e S t a c k l l t l g a t l o n o r - t h e

F o r c e l i t i g a t i o n s l n c e t h a t ~ u d g m e n t . However, a

f u r t h e r ~ u d g m e n t was d e l i v e r e d I n t h e Supreme Court

by McPherson J . I n t h e F o r c e l l t l g a t i o n on 13 May 1 9 8 3 .

I n s u b s t a n c e , h l s Honour l n d l c a t c d t h a t h e was of a mlnd

t o make a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f s . 8 6 of the

Trade P rac t l ces A c t was n o t t o r e n d e r t h e l u r l s d l c t l o n

of t h l s C o u r t c x c l u s l v e 111 r e s p e c t o f t h e whole s u b ~ e c t

m a t t e r o f t h e r e l e v s n t a c t l o n +$I the Suprene Court .

However, a t the r eques t o f s en io r counse l r ep rcsen t lng

the At torney-Genera l o f the Commonwealth of Australia,

he re f ramed f rom dolng so a t t h a t t l m e and ad~ourned

f o r a pe r iod .

On t h e same day, 13 May 1983, t h e High Court

o r d e r e d t h a t m a t t e r s G 8 , G 9 and G 1 0 of 1983 In t h l s

Cour t which form par t o f the S tack l i t iga t ion be

removed m t o t h e Hlgh Court "for the purpose only of

d e t e r m l n i n g t h e ~ u r l s d i c t l o n a l q u e s t i o n " . A l t h o u g h I have

no t s een any o rde r wh lch lden t l f l e s t h e c o n s t i t u t l o n a l

quest ion whlch 1s t o be decldecl by the High Court In the

S t a c k l i t l g a t l o n , t h e n a t u r e o f t h e q u e s t i o n s t o

be argued perhaps suff lc ient ly emerges f rom the

f o l l o w i n g e x t r a c t f r o m t h e t r a n s c r i p t b e f o r e t h e

Hlqh Court durlng the address of senior counsel for

the vendor -

"MR DAVIES: . . . t h e y a r e q u e s t i o n s on whlch

t o p u t A t a t I t s lowest, 111 our

r e spec t fu l submiss lon , t he rc s t l l l remalns

d o u b t , t h a t IS , whether the Federal Court

h a s ~ u r i s d l c t l o n to t r y t h e s p e c i f l c

performance clslm, and the second one,

lf It h a s t h a t j u r l s d l c t l o n , t h a t

j u r l s d l c t l o n	1s	e x c l u s l v e .
...

GIBBS C J : . . . The v i e w t h a t

Mr J u s t l c e F l t z g e r a l d e x p r e s s e s , a n d

I am it i s r i g h t o r	n o t f o r	a	moment	s u g g e s t i n g t h a t
wrong,	1 s t h a t a

r e t r o s p e c t i v e e x c l u s l v l t y a t t a c h e s t o

a matter.

MR DAVIES: Yes

GIBBS C J . : B u t t h e supreme court ,

u n d o u b t e d l y , h a s l u r i s d l c t i o n t o

commence w i t h t h e a c t i o n o f s p e c i f i c

performance, but a t some s t a g e when

someone makes a c l a i m I n t h e

Federal Court It 1s r e t r o s p e c t l v e l y

d i v e s t e d of ~ u r i s d l c t z o n .

MR DAVIES: Yes, and perhaps there i s

even the fu r the r a rguab le vlew t h a t

once t h e cont roversy i s ra i sed , pe rhaps

even In correspondence, as t o a f e d e r a l

m a t t e r , as t o a misleading statement,

t h a t t h e supreme court i s deprlved and

r e t r o s p e c t i v e l y d e p r l v e d , o f j u r l s d i c t i o n . "

1 2 .

I have a l ready set ou t above the on ly vlew whlch I have

expressed. That vlew, except that I t was an oplnlon only

a s t o what seemed t o me arguable , does not appear to me

d l f f e r e n t i n e f f e c t from what was l a t e r s a d by Glbbs CJ

i n Fencot t v . ___ Muller I n t h e f o l l o w ~ n q p a s s a g e :

"However, any inconvenlence i n a case such a s

t h e p r e s e n t a r l s e s o n l y f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t

the Pa r l i amen t has chosen to make t h e

j u r i s d l c t i o n of the Federa l Cour t cxc lus lv? ;

It d o e s n o t l n e v i t a b l y r e s u l t f r o m t h e

cons t i t u t lona l p rov i s ions t hemse lves . In

any case, t o a t t e m p t t o m l t l q a t e t h e

lnconvenlence whlch may r e s u l t t o a p a r t y

who b r l n g s h i s proceedings m t h e F e d e r a l

Cour t , by adopt lng a b r o a d i n t c r p r e t a t l o n

o f t h e word "ma t t e r " , o r by o the rwise

accord lng to the Federa l Cour t an expanded

] u r l s d l c t i o n , w l l l have t h e e f f e c t o f

s h i f t i n g t h e burden of inconvenlence to

a p a r t y who b r lngs h i s p roceed lngs i n t h e

Supreme Court of a S t a t e , s l n c e s.86 b r l n g s

about a r ec ip roc i ty be tween the two

j u r i s d i c t i o n s , w l t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e

w i d e r t h e j u r i s d i c t l o n t h a t 1 s conceded

t o t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t , t h e n a r r o w e r i s that

remaln ing ln the S ta te Cour t . . . . ' I

(underlining added)

His Honour, of course, had a narrower vlcw of t h l s

C o u r t ' s j u r i s d l c t l o n t h a n d i d t h e m a j o r l t y I n t h a t

c a s e b u t t h a t i s of no present Importance.

Although so f a r a s 1 am aware only t h e proceedlngs

In th i s Cour t and no t t he p roceed lngs I n t h e Supreme Court

I n t h e S t a c k l i t i g a t i o n h a v e b e e n removed I n t o t h e Hlgh

Cour t , " exc lus iv l ty" must , I th lnk , be one o f t he ques t ions

which it is In tended the Hlgh Court will cons lde r . However,

It may n o t b e t h e o n l y q u e s t l o n .

13.

So f a r as I c a n a s c e r t a l n , n e l t h e r t h e

proceedlngs 111 th i s Cour t no r t he p roceed lngs I n

t h e Supreme C o u r t I n t h e F o r c e l l t l g a t l o n h a v e y e t

been removed l n t o t h e High Cour t bu t there 1s an

a p p l l c a t i o n t o remove all t h e F o r c e l l t l g a t l o n l n t o

t h e High Court whlch 1s due t o be heard by the

Hlgh Court i n the nea r fu tu re . Accord lng t o t he

vendor ' s no t l ce unde r s . 7 8 B o€ t h e J u d l c l a r y A c t I n

r e s p e c t of the proceedlngs In t h l s Cour t In the Force

l l t l g a t l o n , t h e c o n s t l t u t l o n a l m a t t e r	whlch has ar lsen
i s -

"a	d i s p u t e a s	t o t h e r e s p e c t l v e ~ u r l s d i c t l o n s
of	t h i s C o u r t	and the Supreme Court of

Queens land to	dea l wl th the c la lms of
t he App l i can t	made I n thcse p roceedmgs ,

whether as clalms made I n t h i s C o u r t o r

a s d e f e n c e s I n t h e Supreme Court of

Queensland; and to dea l w i th t he c l a lms

of the Respondent made In ac t lon no . 6333 of

1 9 8 2 between the Respondent i n t h i s C o u r t

a s P l a m t l f f i n t h e Supreme Court and the

A p p l l c a n t i n t h l s C o u r t as Defendant In

t h e Supreme Cour t , and In par t lcu lar whether

by r e a s o n o f t h e l n s t l t u t l o n o f t h e s e

p roceed lngs and the app l l ca t lon the re to of

Sec t ion 86 of	t h e __	Trade Prac t ices Act	1 9 7 4
as amended -

(a ) This Cour t has In consequence of the

ope ra t lon o f Sec t ion 7 7 ( i ) and

Sec t lon 7 7 ( 1 1 ) o r o t h e r p r o v i s l o n s

of t h e C o n s t l t u t l o n exclusive

~ u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and determine

the whole o r any and what par t o r

p a r t s of t h e s u b ~ e c t matter o f t h e

s a l d a c t i o n i n t h e Supreme Court;

(b ) The Su2reme Court has any and what

j u r i s d l c t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n a n d t o

hear and determlne any and what

p a r t o r p a r t s o f t h e s u b ~ c c t - m a t t e r

of t h e s a l d a c t i o n I n t h e

Supreme Court . "

14.

The High Cour t in Fencot t v . Mul le r d ld not

e x p r e s s l y d e a l w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s ~ u r l s d l c t l o n t o d e a l -

wi th non-federa l counter -c la lms which form par t of a

cont roversy be tween par t les . I must , m n e w of what

has occur red o r may occur In the S tack and Force l l t l ga t lon

p r o c e e d o n t h e b a s l s t h a t t h a t q u e s t l o n may be dea l t w i th

i n t h e High Cour t In the not too d ls tan t fu ture . I n all

the ci rcumstances, even though no o b j 2 c t l o n t o j u r i s d l c t i o n

i s r a l s e d by any par ty in these proceedlngs , I cons lder

t h a t , b e f o r e I could proceed fur ther , I would be requlred

by s.78B o f t h e J u d i c i a r y Act t o d l r e c t t h a t n o t i c e s b e g l v e n

to the At to rneys -Genera l of t h e Commonwealth and t h e S t a t e

of Queensland.

More d l f f l c u l t 1 s the qucs t lon whether 1 s h u u l l ?

p roceed to t ry these p roceed lngs a s ma t t c r s s t and .

The p a r t l e s u r g e m e t o d o so , the vendor perhaps

less than t he pu rchase r s . T h e vendor seems t o assume

t h a t , i f t h l s C o u r t d o e s n o t determine I ts cross-c la lms ,

it w i l l b e a b l e t o p e r s u a d e t h e Supreme C o u r t t o t r y a t

l e a s t o n e of them, In l a t e J u l y o r e a r l y A u g u s t , i n a n

a c t l o n a l r e a d y commenced m t h c Supreme Court ,

l r r e s p e c t l v e o f w h e t h e r t h e l u r l s d l c t l o n a l p r o b l e m s have then been resolved by t h e Hiqh Court. The

p u r c h a s e r s p o i n t o u t t h a t t h a t may not prove to be

co r rec t . Fu r the r , on ly one o f t he ac t lons I n t h e

Supreme C o u r t h a s b e e n c e r t l f i e d f o r s p e e d y t r l a l ,

t h e r e 1s no o r d e r t h a t t h e two a c t l o n s there be heard

t o g e t h e r , a n d , a l t h o u g h t h e f a c t u a l z s s u e s a r e l d c n t l c a l ,

1 5 .

t he Trade P rac t i ces A c t h a s n o t b e e n r a i s e d l n the

Supreme Court by the purchaser . On any view, i f t h e

t r l a l 1s no t p roceeded wi th In th l s Cour t , t he pa r t l e s

w i l l b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e l a y e d .

On the o t h e r h a n d , i f I p r o c e e d t o t r y t h e

proceedlnqs, even though I reserve ludgment u n t i l a f t e r

t h e Hlgh Cour t ' s dec l s lon , and I t l a t e r e m e r g e s t h a t I had

no ] u r l s d i c t l o n , t h e p a r t l e s wlll have been put to

cons iderable was ted expense and , expense as lde , unfa l rness

c o u l d r e s u l t t o o n e o f t h e p a r t l e s f r o m a n a v o i d a b l e

d o u b l e t r l a l o f l s s u e s . T h e s e a r e n o t p r o c e e d l n g s l n

which a d e c l s l o n on the Trade P rac t l ces A c t c la ims

a d v e r s e l y t o t h e p u r c h a s e r w i l l h a v e t h e p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t

t h a t t h e p u r c h a s e r i s l e f t w i t h o u t p o s s l b l e a n s w e r t o t h e

vendor ' s c l a lms fo r spec l f l c pe r fo rmance . Re l l ance i s

placed by the pu rchase r no t on ly on t h e a l l e g e d b r e a c h e s

o f t he Trade P rac t l ces A c t b u t also on a l leged breaches of

c o n t r a c t by the vendor , a l leged breaches by the vendor of

s . 4 9 of the Building Units and Group T i t l e s A c t 1 9 8 0 ( Q l d )

and ma t t e r s wh ich a re sa id to war ran t a d l s c r e t i o n a r y r e f u s a l

o f e q u l t a b l e r e l l e f . Even I f , a s t h e p a r t l e s a c c e p t , a l l

t h e s e a r e b u t a s p e c t s o f a s i n g l e m a t t e r , It i s obvious

t h a t t h e r e a r e a s l g n i f l c a n t number of q u e s t i o n s m t h e

proceedlngs which are d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d o n l y t o the cross-claim

and which do n o t f a l l f o r d c c l s i o n in t h i s C o u r t If It cannot

dec ide the c ross -c la lm.

16.

Even If, as was submitted t o m e , no

q u e s t i o n of exclusivity o f j u r l s d l c t l o n a r l s e s i n t h e s e

p r o c e e d i n g s a n d t h e m a ~ o r i t y d e c l s l o n I n F e n c o t t	v.	M u l l e r
s u g g e s t s t h a t t h l s C o u r t d o e s h a v e j u r l s d l c t i o n a n d c a n ,

unless t h e p r o c e e d m g s a r e removed, I t s e l f a p p r o p r l a t e l y r u l e on

t h a t q u e s t i o n , t h e High Courr; proceedings I n the Stack and Force

l i t l g a t i o n c a n n o t b e i g n o r e d . The on ly poss ib l e difference

whlch I can d i scern be tween those cases these 1s t h a t

t h e r e ~ u r i s d l c t l o n a l questions a rose be fo re t h e p leadings

had proceeded beyond the Statements of Clalrn. No cross-clalms

had been de l ive red and , a t l ea s t I n t h e F o r c e l l t l g a t l o n

i f n o t i n bo th , i t seems t h a t t h e w i s h of the vendor

i s n o t t o c r o s s - c l a l m i n t h l s C o u r t b u t t o p r o c e e d i n t h e

Supreme Court . However, I do n o t know whe the r t ha t 1 s a

r e l e v a n t d l s t l n c t i o n . F u r t h e r , t h e r e are o ther p roceedlngs

I n t h l s Cour t In wh ich no t l ces unde r s.78B of the

J u d l c i a r y A c t have been directed whlch do Involve cross-claims

by vendors whlch are not dls t lngulshable f rom these proceedlngs.

For a l l I know, they may be removed l n t o t h e Hlgh Court o r ,

I f n o t i c e s a r e d i r e c t e d u n d e r s.78B I n these proceedlngs ,

these p roceedlngs may be removed. A11 p a r t l e s I n t h e s e

proceedings have informed m e t h a t t h e y a r e a n x l o u s t o

a v o i d t h a t s t e p .

I n S t a c k , sup ra , I s t o p p e d s h o r t o f e q r e s s l n g

any oplnlon beyond what seemed t o m e a rguable

17.

h a v l n g r e g a r d t o w h a t h a d b e e n s a l d t o t h a t p o l n t

by t h e Hlgh Court. I n exp la ln lng why I thought it

lnappropr l a t e t o fo rm o r expres s any more p o s l t l v e

opin lon , I s a l d , l n t e r a l l a :

'I ... t h e r e a r e s e n s l t l v e p o l l c y l s s u e s

involved. The High C o u r t , a s t h e f m a l

c o u r t o f a p p e a l f o r t h i s c o u n t r y , seems

p l a i n l y t o b e t h e a p p r o p r l a t e a r b l t e r

r a the r t han one of t h e c o u r t s

unwi l l lnq ly Involved m what may

wrongly be seen as a j u r l s d i c t l o n a l

conf l lc t be tween the Cour ts themselves ."

There seem t o me t o be compelllng reasons	why	a
s l n g l e ~ u d g e o f t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d n o t p r o c e e d t o

dea l wl th a j u r i sd l c t iona l ques t lon wh lch 1 s l l k e l y

to be cons idered soon by t h e Hlqh Court l n proceedlngs

a l r e a d y i n t h a t C o u r t .

A c c o r d l n g l y , t h e t r l a l of these proceedlngs w i l l

not proceed t o t h a t e f f e c t b u t on 1 5 J u n e 1 9 8 3 . I w i l l make a formal o rder

I: w l l l make no o t h e r o r d e r a t t h i s

tune. The p roceed lnqs can be r e s to red fo r fu r the r

d l r e c t l o n s a t any time on s h o r t n o t i c e . I f It becomes

a p p r o p r i a t e , I will t h e n d l r e c t n o t l c e s u n d e r s . 7 8 B of

t he Jud ic l a ry Ac t . When t h e High C o u r t d e l l v e r s Its

r u l i n g , i f It i s p o s s l b l e f o r t h e p a r t l e s t o p r o c e e d

i n th i s Cour t and they wish t o do so, an a t t empt wlll

be made t o p r o v i d e e a r l y h e a r i n g d a t e s .